Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd was sold by shareholders who included Berjaya's Vincent Tan Chee Yioun and his lawyer V.K. Lingam to Nexnews Bhd sometime in 2003. One of the conditions imposed on that sale by the Securities Commission Malaysia was that the vendors indemnify Nexnews for any amount of damages awarded by any court against Sun Media Corp in relation to all legal proceedings commenced prior to the completion of the acquisition of Sun Media Corp by Nexnews.

One of those proceedings was the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd. I have referred to this matter and how its management by the Industrial Court, in light of the VK Lingam video, raises questions about the corruption of that court and a former Director-General of the Manpower Department, Zainol Abidin Abdul Rashid.http://malaysianjudges.blogspot.com/2007/10/will-zainol-abidin-abdul-rashid-step.html

In Award 893 of 2006 , delivered on 22 May 2006, IC chairman Haji Saufee Afandi bin Mohmad found that the sacking of the claimant , Ganesh Sahathevan , a journalist , by his employer, Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd, publisher of THE SUN daily, was just and for proper cause.

The company had sacked the claimant in January 1997 , for writing astory that the company had published concerning the business dealingsof Datuk Mokzhani Mahathir and a former stock broker from Singapore,Peter Lim Eng Hock.

The story written was based almost entirely on statements made byMokzhani Mahathir.

Peter Lim issued a cease and desist to the Claimant and company inregards to the story, but not Mohzani Mahathir.

The company immediately sought to apologise to Mr Lim and retract thestory, before it had obtained from Ganesh Sahathevan a written reportregarding his sources and justification for the story.

Subsequently, the company had claimed that Ganesh did not exerciseproper care in writing the story, claiming that the story was false.The company alleged that legal action had been commenced against itby Mr Lim as a result of publication of the story, even though nolegal action had been commenced. Ganesh maintained that the story wasaccurate, and alleged victimisation on the basis that Berjaya GroupBhd, then a shareholder of Sun Media Group, was also a party to thebusiness dealing revealed in the story.Company searches were providedas evidence of Berjaya's involvement.

In finding for the company , Haji Saufee Afandi held:

"The Claimant has made issue with the Company's offer to apologize to Peter Lim.I agree with the Company that the offer to apologize is irrelevant to whether or not the dismissal of the Claimant is for just cause or excuse. If the Claimant had indeed written the Peter Lim article negligently ie without proper basis then he has committed a misconduct. That is so whether the Company offered to apologize or not. In fact even if the Company decides to fight the claims and wins based on evidence or fair comment that it obtains subsequently or through other parties still the Claimant is guilty of misconduct if he wrote the article without proper basis. "

The company had relied on a number of defamation cases in its submission. Thus, the Industrial Court in this case considered the matter as one of defamation.

In the words of the learned Chairman:Although these are defamation cases, they are relevant to guide the Court on the type of justification a journalist must have when he writes an article, especially one that contained allegations which may affect the reputation of the person mentioned .

The decision opens to the door for plaintiffs in defamation matters another avenue when seeking suppression of stories they are not happy about.Parties who feel aggrieved by any matter published need not now seek the more legally rigorous and expensive route of an action in defamation, and related interlocutory injunctions. They can now attempt to ensure that the publisher of the article is pressured enough,with the mere threat of an action in defamation, to act against its own journalist,who would be denied the defence of fair comment.

In one fell swoop Saufee Affandi destroyed the centuries old defence of fair comment, quite an amazing feat for a chairman of an Industrial Court, who was formerly a judge in the Sessions Court. Like the case of Vincent Tan v MGG Pillai, this too appears to be a case where the court was prepared to create, re-write the law to suit the plaintiff for reasons best known to the judge concerned.

This account corresponds with the finding reported in the "Bowman papers" about how Vincent Tan who then owned and controlled Mutiara (now known as Digi) had special VIP accounts set-up to manage their Mutiara handphone bills .

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Sometime between 1994 and 1996 , a matter went before the Department of Industrial Relations for reconciliation.The matter was brought by a lawyer said to be named Geetha Menon (GM), who had been dismissed from her position as legal assistant (LA) at VK Lingam and Co.

GM claimed that she was sacked for refusing to personally courier a quantity of cash to a then sitting judge.

Seeking reinstatement before the Industrial Court (for that is the objective of hearings before the Court), she had first to attend a reconciliation hearing.

At this point, the dear girl fell into a trap of her own making. Representatives of VK Lingam and Co offered to take her back, to which her response was something along the lines of " I would never want to work or you again".Needless to say, the Department then decided that the matter should not be referred to the Industrial Court.The above information was gained from the so-called Bowman papers ( http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/1181) as well as then senior employees of the Department.

However, there is now this report lodged by VK Lingam's brother, Balan which in part reads:

2) IN 1995 I WITNESS MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM CORRUPTING A FORMER INDUSTRIALIST COURT CHAIRMAN MR SATCHI WHERE I SAW MY BROTHER HANDING OVER A CHEQUE IN THE SUM OF RM 50,000.00.(http://rockybru2.blogspot.com/2007/11/hes-my-brother.html)

This raises the question whether Geetha Menon's matter not being referred had something to do with this payment.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

In his speech at the UN General Assembly ....... Dr Mahathir had criticised the UN for "rather unusual practices", citing as an example, the choice of UN human rights commissioners.

Without naming anyone but obviously referring to (Datuk Param Cumuraswamy ), Dr Mahathir told the world body: "But the UN chose a person well known for his virulent attacks on the Malaysian judiciary to report on that institution".

"The UN then conferred on him total immunity against the laws of his country without reference to or consent of the country and the immunity apparently extends beyond his task of reporting his findings to the UN."(UN RAPPORTEUR PARAM DENIES ATTACKING JUDICIARY. 1 October 1999,BERNAMA Malaysian National News Agency)

The cause of Mahathir's anger: The High Court today held that United Nations Special Rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy of Malaysia is entitled to immunity from all legal processes with regards to words spoken or acts done during the course of his mission as a U.N. agent...With respect to costs, Nathan said the parties ought to bear their own costs as Param had not acted impartially regarding the statements made in International Commercial Litigation. Param's interview with the magazine entitled "Malaysian Justice on Trial" is the source of the defamation suits filed against him.

Param is facing another three defamation suits filed by MBF Capital and MBF Northern Securities, lawyer V. K. Lingam and business tycoon Vincent Tan's Berjaya Industrial and Berjaya Corp. (Cayman) based on the interview given.

(http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/2000vol10no08/652/)

It appears that Mahathir was taking all this personally for reasons perhaps best described by VK Lingam:

. But never-mind, I will do this, I will get Tengku Adnan to arrange for PM to call you and Tan Sri Vincent Tan for PM to call you. And you know why, actually, I am very grateful with Tan Sri Vincent Tan you know why, I brainwash you so much even I quarrel with him. One day I went to Vincent Tan house, I fire him at the night in his house. I said very hell if you don’t do this who will do it?All these people Tun Eusoff Chin, Datuk Ahmad Fairuz, Tan Sri Zainon all fought for that. Then he called Tengku Adnan. Tengku Adnan he said, saya bukan Perdana Menteri Malaysia lah, you know. If the old man doesn’t want to listen to me, go to hell.

He quarreled with me. I said nevermind, nevermind, you talk to PM again tomorrow morning to put Datuk Ahmad Fairuz to CJM. So next day morning he went and he called me back 9.30 that he said PM has already agreed. So I said nevermind, we hope for the best. So I said no harm trying, the worst that it can happen is that you lose. Being the old man, he is 76 years old, he gets whispers everywhere, and then you don’t whisper, he get taken away by the other side. But, now PM is very alert because every time he gets letters from Tan Sri Zaidin, he called Tengku Adnan, he said discuss with Vincent, come and discuss.We want to make sure our friends are there for the sake of the PM and the sake of the country.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

There is in the VK Lingam video recording a number of scenes where the source of lighting for the room in which the scenes were recorded is clearly visible.In these scenes it can be clearly seen that the source of lighting is some type of fluorescent light fixed in that room's ceiling.

This light would be reflected of objects in the room,including a person moving around the room from a northerly aspect-ie the reflections would be consistent with the source being above the objects.

The VK Lingam video clearly shows light on the person in the video being reflected from a source above.More important, the video shows that the intensity of reflection changes according to the position of the person relative to the light.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the person's image has been superimposed.What is shown here are 3 images, the first shows a side profile, and with it an enhanced image in which the areas of highest intensity are coloured black.The third shows the location of the light in the ceiling.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

The palace plays a prime role in matters relating to justice. This was clearly reflected in Malay history where the palace was the last place the people would go to in seeking justice.

Problems of the people which could not be resolved at lower levels were resolved fairly after they were brought before the Ruler.

"Such is the close relation between the people and the palace in matters relating to justice because for centuries the Ruler has been the protector of the people and the palace is where problems of the people are solved," (Source:Palace plays role in matters of justice' ,5 July 2001,New Straits TimesMain/Lifestyle; 2*02)

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Readers will recall that Haidar has yet to hear anything(see http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/10/18/nation/19188263&sec=nation&focus=1), Shankar wants to see something, or someone(see http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/11487/2/) and Lam Thye has chosen to not say anything.

Monday, October 8, 2007

According to Tan Sri Dato Seri(x9) Vincent Tan Chee Yioun: "There is no difference between Vincent Tan and Berjaya Group ... they are synonymous"......... (Source:Articles Cast Plaintiff In Bad Light, Ccourt Told 12 October 1994,Business Times Singapore)

According to VK Lingam:

And you know why, actually, I am very grateful with Tan Sri Vincent Tan you know why, I brainwash you so much even I quarrel with him. One day I went to Vincent Tan house, I fire him at the night in his house. I said very hell if you don’t do this who will do it?All these people Tun Eusoff Chin, Datuk Ahmad Fairuz, Tan Sri Zainon all fought for that.Then he called Tengku Adnan. Tengku Adnan he said, saya bukan Perdana Menteri Malaysia lah, you know. If the old man doesn’t want to listen to me, go to hell.

He quarreled with me. I said nevermind, nevermind, you talk to PM again tomorrow morning to put Datuk Ahmad Fairuz to CJM. So next day morning he went and he called me back 9.30 that he said PM has already agreed. So I said nevermind, we hope for the best. So I said no harm trying, the worst that it can happen is that you lose. Being the old man, he is 76 years old, he gets whispers everywhere, and then you don’t whisper, he get taken away by the other side. But, now PM is very alert because every time he gets letters from Tan Sri Zaidin, he called Tengku Adnan, he said discuss with Vincent, come and discuss.

(http://www.keadilanrakyat.org/index.php/content/view/284/98/)

The following persons are directors of Berjaya Corporation:

DATO’ HJ MD YUSOFF @ MOHD YUSOFF BIN JAAFAR59 years of age, MalaysianIndependent Non-Executive DirectorDato’ Hj Md Yusoff @ Mohd Yusoff Bin Jaafar was appointed to the Board of the Company on 15 September 2005 in conjunction with the restructuring exercise of Berjaya Group Berhad. He has been a Director of Berjaya Group Berhad since 25 August 2003. He graduated from the University of Science Malaysia, Penang, in 1978 with a Bachelor of Social Science (Hons) degree majoring in Political Science and a minor in Ethnic Relations. He began his 34-year career with the Royal Malaysian Police Force as a trainee Probationary Inspector in 1969. He was selected to the Special Branch Department the following year where he held various commanding positions. Between 1983 and 1990, he was Head of the Special Branch in Terengganu before being seconded to the Head Office at Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur, where he served for a period of 2 years. He was then posted to the Special Branch Training Institution, Jalan Gurney, Kuala Lumpur as a Commandant before his promotion as Deputy Chief Police Officer of Pulau Pinang and Pahang. Prior to his retirement in May 2003, he was in Terengganu as the Chief Police Officer of the State andhis last commanding post in the police was as the Commissioner of Police, Sarawak. Heis also actively involved in various community organisations and has served as the Special Advisor to the Ministry of Social Development and Urbanisation Sarawak.Dato’ Hj Md Yusoff @ Mohd Yusoff Bin Jaafar is a member of the Audit Committee of theCompany

MOHD ZAIN BIN AHMAD54 years of age, MalaysianIndependent Non-Executive DirectorHe was appointed to the Board of the Company on 15 September 2005 in conjunctionwith the restructuring exercise of Berjaya Group Berhad. He has been a Director of Berjaya Group Berhad since 25 August 2003.He holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Buckingham, England and aCertificate in Legal Practice. He also holds Diploma in Syariah Law & Practice from International Islamic University Malaysia and Public Administration from Universiti Teknologi MARA.He began his career with the Royal Malaysian Police Force as a police inspector in 1971. He was promoted to Assistant Superintendent of Police in 1980 and served until 1986. He was admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya on 25 October 1986.

TAN SRI DATUK ABDUL RAHIM BIN HAJI DIN67 years of age, MalaysianIndependent Non-Executive DirectorHe was appointed to the Board of the Company on 15 September 2005 in conjunctionwith the restructuring exercise of Berjaya Group Berhad. He has been a Director of BerjayaGroup Berhad since 19 September 1996.He graduated with a degree in Bachelor of Arts from Universiti Malaya in 1963 and obtained his Master of Business Administration from the University of Detroit, United States of America in 1976.Prior to joining Berjaya Group Berhad, he served as the Secretary-General in the Ministry of Home Affairs from 1992 until his retirement in September 1996. From 1987 to 1991, he was the General Manager of the Employees Provident Fund before becoming the Deputy Group Chief Officer of Permodalan Nasional Berhad, a post he held from 1991 to 1992. He also holds directorships in several other private limited companies.Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim Bin Haji Din is a member of the Audit Committee, NominationCommittee and Remuneration Committee of the Company.

The person named below is a director of Berjaya Land:DATUK MAIZAN BIN SHAARI59 years of age, MalaysianIndependent Non-ExecutiveHe was appointed to the Board on 8 December 2004. He holds a Bachelor of Arts(Sociology & Anthropology) from University of Malaya and a Master of Arts (PoliticalScience) from Ohio University, USA.He joined the Royal Malaysian Police in 1973 and rose to become the Director of theNarcotics Department in 1998. Prior to 1998, he had held various positions in thePolice Force. From 1999 to 2000, he was the Deputy Director of Criminal InvestigationDepartment. He was also the Director of Commercial Crime Division since 2000 beforeretiring from the civil service in September 2003.Currently, he is also a Director in Dunham-Bush (Malaysia) Bhd and Berjaya GeneralInsurance Berhad.Datuk Maizan Bin Shaari is a member of the Audit Committee of the Company.http://www.berjaya.com.my/home/archive/annualreport06/land/bjland_2006.pdf

The following persons are directors of Berjaya Toto:

TAN SRI DATO' JAFFAR BIN ABDUL(Independent/Non-Executive)70 years of age, MalaysianHe was appointed to the Board on 28 August 1997 as an Independent Non-Executive Director and Chairman of the Audit Committee. He joined the PoliceForce in 1951 and rose to become Director of the Anti-Narcotic Branch,Federal Police Headquarters, in 1982. From 1982 to 1984, he was the ChiefPolice Officer in Johor and between 1984 to 1985, he was the Director ofManagement Police Headquarters in Bukit Aman since 1985. He was also theDeputy Inspector General of the Royal Malaysian Police since 1985 beforeretiring from the civil service in May 1989. He is currently the Chairman ofCosway Corporation Berhad, Mycom Berhad, Anson Perdana Berhad, YinsonHoldings Berhad and Perdana Industrial Holdings Berhad. He is also aDirector in Olympia Industries Berhad, Angkasa Marketing Berhad,Amalgamated Containers Berhad and several other private limited companies.

MOHAMED SALEH BIN GOMU(Independent/Non-Executive)52 years of age, MalaysianHe was appointed to the Board on 22 December 1999 as an IndependentNon-Executive Director. He joined Polis Diraja Malaysia ("PDRM") as anInspector in June 1970 and left for England to further his studies in 1981. Hegraduated with a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) Degree in 1982 and obtained aCertificate in Legal Practice in 1984. Upon graduation, he continued to servePDRM in various capacities including as a Staff Officer in the Special Branch,Officer-in-charge of Prosecution (Lower Courts) Kuala Lumpur and Officer-inchargeof Brickfields Police District. Before his optional retirement in June1992, he was Head of the INTERPOL/National Central Bureau Secretariat.Soon after his retirement, he went into private legal practice. Currently, he isalso a Director in Kumpulan Emas Berhad and Omega Holdings Berhad.http://www.berjaya.com.my/home/archive/annualreport06/toto/bjtoto_2006_chairmansta_eng.pdf

Monday, October 1, 2007

One day I went to Vincent Tan’s house, I fired him at night in his house. I said bloody hell, if you don’t do this who will do it? All these people, Tun Eusoff Chin, Datuk Ahmad Fairuz, Tan Sri Zainol (?) all fought for …hat. Then he called Tengku Adnan. Tengku Adnan he said, saya bukan Perdana Menteri Malaysia lah, you know. If the old man doesn’t want to listen to me, go to hell.(http://www.keadilanrakyat.org/index.php/content/view/303/1/)

Instances where Zainol's decisions in favour of the Berjaya Group is apparent:

a)The Federal Court has held that the Human Resources Minister was wrong in not referring to the Industrial Court a dispute between Berjaya Industrial Bhd and its former vice- president and general manager.

Federal Court judge Datuk Haidar Mohd Noor said it would be best for the Industrial Court to deal with the suspension of Thong Chin Yoong who had claimed constructive dismissal.

"It seems clear that the Federal Court was asked to consider an issue which was not determined by the High Court as well as the Court of Appeal.

Thong had claimed constructive dismissal on May 4, 1994, after he was suspended (with full pay) pending investigation and inquiry into his alleged misconduct.

He made representations to the Director-General of Industrial Relations seeking reinstatement and the Minister was informed of the dispute after a failure to reach an amicable solution.

The Minister decided that Thong's representation was not fit to be referred to the Industrial Court. (Source:`Minister wrong in not referring case' 31 July 2001The New Straits Times)

b)The case of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media Sdn Bhd This writer can report the following history of that case from his own records.Readers can determine for themselves whether or not the case had been handled fairly:i) The matter commenced with the dismissal on January 1997ii) Between February and May 1997 the matter was before the Director-General of Industrial Relations for arbitration which failediii) Almost one and a half years later, in late 1998, the Director-General of Industrial Relations advised that the matter had been referred to the Industrial Courtiv)The matter was heard between early 1999 and middle 2001,before court chairman Datuk Abu Bakar Awang .The hearings had been stretched out over that period of time becuase of adjournemtns sought by counsel for Sun Media, Dato Sivaparamjothy and instructing solicitor, later counsel, Dato VK Lingam.v)Final submissions,again delayed by Sun Media, were filed only in early 2002.vi) Sometime in 2004, parties were informed that the matter had been set for mention, for re-hearing of the entire matter before a new chairman. The parties were advised that a new hearing was necessary because Datuk Abu Bakar Awang who had heard the matter had been forced to resign (his contract not renewed) before he could hand down his decision. The Industrial Relations Act 1967 expressly forbids the Minister from terminating the services of a court chairman while a matter is still pending.vii)The matter was then re-assigned to court chairman Saufee Affandi, a former justice of the Sessions Court.viii) In late 2006 , almost 10 years of the dismissal, Saufee Affandi handed down a decision in favour of Sun Media.Following in the footsteps of many other prominent judges who had presided over matters in which Berjaya and or Vincent Tan were party,Saufee Affandi created new law which appeared tailored to suit the needs of the favoured party. END

Source material

Ahmad Sarji also announced the appointment of Economic Planning Unit human resources director Zainol Abidin Abdul Rashid as the new director-general of the Manpower Department. He replaces Encik Asnan Pi'i who retired on October 19.(ARIS REJOINS FINANCE MINISTRY AS DEPUTY SEC-GEN. By Kamarul Yunus. 333 words4 November 1994)

THE Human Resources Ministry is re-engineering itself to boost its effectiveness, reduce operational costs and become a "one-stop service centre".

The ministry's new secretary-general, Datuk Zainol Abidin Abdul Rashid, said the revamp will involve the merging of offices and departments as well as the redeployment of staff.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

In the matter of MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato' Vincent Tan Chee Yioun [2002] 2 MLJ 673 , the Federal Court was asked to set-aside its own judgment against Pillai for defamation of Tan, for ,amongst other reasons, apparent bias on the part of the then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin.

The issue of bias was based on photographs and other evidence which had come to light ,after being published on the Net, which showed Chin on holiday with counsel for Tan, VK Lingam, in the same matter.

So serious was this issue that the then minister in charge of justice, Rais Yatim, publicly chastised Eusoffe in the middle of 2000.

Eusoffe responded challenging Rais's powers, and when on to defend himself saying:

"You must remember, judges are not robots. They are human beings, they have to have friends because when they die, they have to be buried."

This entire episode was widely reported, both in Malaysia and internationally. It drew comment from the Bar Council, the Malaysian Opposition and even then prime minister Mahathir.

Against this background, Steve Shim (the other two judges, Norma Yaakob and Haidar Noor agreeing with him, decided , on the basis of the equitable doctrine of waiver, that because Pillai had taken his time in asserting Eusoff's bias, he had in effect chosen to give-up his right to assert bias.

In Steve Shim's words:

THE ISSUE OF WAIVER

In the course of his submission, counsel for the respondent has raised the issue of waiver on the part of the applicant....... This complaint is premised on the following factual circumstances: that the applicant, from the date the judgment was reserved by the Federal Court on January 13, 1998 to the date of delivery of the said judgment on July 12, 2000, had taken 30 months to make the application to disqualify Eusoff Chin, CJ (Malaysia), that the application to disqualify was made some seven months after the judgment was delivered, making it a total of about 37 months of inactivity; that the applicant had admitted that the facts giving rise to an apprehension of bias on the part of Eusoff Chin, CJ (Malaysia) arose during the course of hearing.

The applicant offered two main reasons for the delay; namely, that he did not have full knowledge of the facts or circumstances giving rise to grounds of apparent bias on the part of Eusoff Chin, CJ (Malaysia); and ; that he did not have knowledge of his right to object or challenge the court's decision.

He waited until judgment was delivered months later......he only "sprung into action" and decided to complain about bias after he had lost the appeal. If he had not lost, it is quite certain that he would not have filed the motion. He wanted the best of both worlds. That, the law will not allow. The doctrine of waiver has militated firmly against him. It has acted as a bulwark against what can suitably be called an after-thought action.

The degree to which Steve Shim and the court appear to have extended themselves in justifying their decision is more apparent in this paragraph:

It is also significant to note that the applicant took another seven to eight months to file the instant application to set aside the decision of the Federal Court . His explanation for the delay was that he was unable to get any solicitors to take up the matter given the repressive tendency apparent at the material time. He cited the repression to include the prevalence of contempt proceedings being made not only against certain parties but also their counsel involved .I find this explanation difficult to comprehend. In my view, even given the perception of repression the applicant might have had, I am still unable to accept such an irrational explanation. Without recounting names, I would say that there were at least half dozen lawyers in the country who would not have hesitated to take up the challenge.

I know for a fact that Pillai had great difficulty getting anyone to represent him , given his financial circumstances. Even the unschooled can see how much more difficult it would be obtaining representation when the case involves an allegation of corruption not merely at the Bench,but of the Chief Justice himself.

That Steve Shim and the court were prepared to assert that there were at least half dozen lawyers in the country who would not have hesitated to take up the challenge of representing Pillai goes only to show how far the Federal Court was prepared to reach in order to not have to deal with the issue of corruption and bias within their own ranks.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

A three-man special independent panel has been formed to investigate and determine the authenticity of a video clip showing a senior lawyer purportedly brokering the appointment of judges. The panel comprises former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor as chairman, National Service Council chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye and former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar.(The Star,26 September 2007)

Excerpt from the story Court reserves judgment on case by A-G against Bar Council man,8 June 1990,Straits Times

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman initiated contempt proceedings against Mr Manjeet on the basis of an affidavit filed by the Bar Council official.

In his affidavit, Mr Manjeet supported a motion by the Bar to send Tun Abdul Hamid, the Lord President of the Judiciary, to jail for alleged contempt of court.

He referred to Tun Hamid's instructions to the then Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr Haidar Mohamed Noor on July 2, 1988, to lock the doors of the Supreme Court and not let any court staff be present at a special sitting to hear an application by former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas over his suspension.

Mr Manjeet accused Tun Abdul Hamid, who was then the Chief Justice of Malaya and Acting Lord President, of attempting to prevent, frustrate and interfere with the special sitting on July 2.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Much has been said about the party at the other end of the line in the VK Lingam video.

Let us for the time being assume that the video was of someone speaking to the wall.

We can still, nevertheless, conclude with a high degree of certainty that the following was said:

One day I went to Vincent Tan’s house, I fired him at night in his house. I said bloody hell, if you don’t do this who will do it? All these people, Tun Eusoff Chin, Datuk Ahmad Fairuz, Tan Sri Zainol (?) all fought for …hat. Then he called Tengku Adnan. Tengku Adnan he said, saya bukan Perdana Menteri Malaysia lah, you know. If the old man doesn’t want to listen to me, go to hell.(http://www.keadilanrakyat.org/index.php/content/view/303/1/)

There are some gaps in this transcript, so readers should listen to the original to ascertain for themselves that in stating the above, the person in the video was saying that Tun Eusoff Chin , Ahmad Fairuz and one Tan Sri Zainol all fought for Vincent Tan.

Therefore, from the above alone, there appears to be a prima facie case that former CJ Eusoff Chin and current CJ Ahmad Fairuz ("110% loyalty) promoted , indeed ,fought for the interests of Vincent Tan, in their official capacities.

Certainly, there is evidence even in the public domain, reproduced on this blog, to show more than one instance where both men have handed down judgements in favour of Vincent Tan that would be laughable if not for their consequences.

This prima facie conclusion then raises questions,the answers to which may come within the provisions of the ANTI-CORRUPTION ACT 1997 and/or the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961.

Therefore, it cannot be said out of hand as the AG has done, that the video discloses no criminal offence.

From the Asian Wall Street Journal,30 September 1992.Story by Stephen Duthie :

Malaysia's Supreme Court is grappling with an unusual, and potentially precedent-setting loan-default suit that threatens to revamp lending procedures of the country's financial institutions and to jeopardize their legal efforts to recover nonperforming loans.The suit involves Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd. and a little-known property developer, MAE Perkayuan Sdn. Bhd. Bank Bumiputra, the country's second-largest bank, filed suit in 1985 against the developer and its chief executive for failing to service interest payments on a M$4.5 million (US$1.8 million) overdraft facility. Bankers and their legal advisers had assumed the legal action was a straightforward case of a borrower defaulting on a loan.

That scenario quickly changed, however, when MAE Perkayuan and its chief executive, Datuk Mohamed Anuar Embong, countersued, claiming breach of contract. Few lawyers took the claim seriously, until the High Court Judge Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in the city of Kuala Trengganu ruled in favor of MAE Perkayuan and Datuk Anuar. At stake for Bank Bumiputra is a M$36 million loss, including M$3.9 million in funds withdrawn from the overdraft facility, nonpayment of interest since mid-1983, and nearly M$20 million in damages awarded by the High Court to MAE Perkayuan for loss of future profit and damages to the reputation of the company's shareholders. Besides Datuk Anuar, MAE Perkayuan's other shareholder was identified in court as the Sultan of the east coast state of Trengganu, who wasn't named in the suit.

But the potential stakes are higher for Malaysia's entire financial system. Kuala Lumpur-based lawyers say that an increasing number of counterclaims -- at least a dozen are believed to be pending -- are being filed by borrowers facing suits from banks seeking repayment. And most are citing Judge Fairuz's ruling as the basis of their claims, the lawyers add.

MAE Perkayuan was represented by Gopal Sri Ram.

And who is Datuk Mohamed Anuar Embong:Environmentalists criticizing the development of a Malaysian island resort plan to challenge a proposal to sell the project to Malaysia's Berjaya Group Bhd. by raising the potential financial burden of environmental complaints at a shareholder meeting. But Berjaya's Tan Sri Tan, one of Malaysia's more active entrepreneurs, has cultivated robust political connections, and the resort project enjoys the support of the royal family of Trengganu, the state that incorporates Pulau Redang. The executive chairman of Redang Island Resort, Datuk Mohamed Anuar Embong, is associated with the Trengganu royalty.

Footnote:According to lawyers involved in the case, the Supreme Court yesterday largely upheld a lower court decision which ruled in favour of an alleged loan defaulter, after it had countersued Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd on grounds of breach of contract.

"It does set a dangerous precedent," said Tommy Thomas, a senior Kuala Lumpur lawyer representing state-owned Bank Bumiputra, the country's second largest commercial bank.

Echoing a widely-held view by local bankers and corporate lawyers, Mr Thomas said the judgment could open the floodgates to more counter claims against financial institutions.

Mr Thomas said the Supreme Court's three-member panel of judges unanimously upheld the lower court's decision that Bank Bumiputra had breached its contract with the developer. But several aspects of the High Court's ruling were overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court cut down damages awarded by the High Court to M$5.3 million. Mr Thomas said MAE Perkayuan was also ordered to pay Bank Bumiputra a total of M$4.3 million, made up largely of the amount drawn down from the overdraft facility, including interest charges.

This, he said, leaves the bank with an outstanding liability of about M$1 million in the case.

The Supreme Court also threw out an award of M$5 million granted by the lower court to the Sultan of Trengganu, which MAE Perkayuan identified as a shareholder of the company.

"It wasn't a total victory, but a substantial victory for Bank Bumiputra in this case," said Mr Thomas when commenting on the judgement read to lawyers from both parties by the Supreme Court's Registrar in chambers.

(Sources:KL COURT RULING IN LOAN-DEFAULT SUIT RAISES FEARS OF PRECEDENT. By Leslie Lopez,8 April 1993,Business Times Singapore); NO GROUND IN LAW TO EXEMPT LOAN REPAYMENT',By S. Sivaselvam,13 April 1993,Business Times)

Thursday, September 20, 2007

No don't worry, Datuk, I know how much you suffer for Tun Eusoff Chin. And Tun said Datuk Ahmad Fairuz 110% loyalty. We want to make sure our friends are there for the sake of the PM and the sake of the country.

Not for our own interest, not for our own interest. We want to make sure the country come first. Well, you suffered so well, so much you have done. For the election, Wee Choo Keong, everything. How much, no body would have done all these.-VK Lingam(Source:http://www.anwaribrahimblog.com/)

For The Election The High Court ....declared the election of Bukit Payong state seat in Terengganu in the 1990 general election null and void.

Justice Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Halim said that the court was satisfied that the election process was not carried out in accordance with the law.

The case was brought to court following a petition submitted by Mr Abdul Hamid Mamat on Dec 19 last year against Haji Baharuddin. He named the Election Commission as the second respondent and the Returning Officer for the Bukit Payong election the third respondent.

In his petition, Mr Hamed claimed that the polling station chief at polling centre No 2 at Sekolah Kebangsaan Pasir Panjang had allowed a woman to cast the vote on behalf of her husband.

The judge said that the polling station chief at Sekolah Kebangsaan Pasir Panjang had failed to use his discretion in determining whether Mr Hassan Mamat was really unable to vote himself and had to ask his wife to vote on his behalf.

He said that the officer only took for granted that Mr Hassan was paralysed, without any confirmation from a medical specialist.

Mr Hamed also alleged that the polling station chief at another polling centre at Sekolah Kebangsaan Atas Tol, had rejected or allowed to be rejected a marked ballot paper under the name of Mazlan.

Justice Ahmad Fairuz said that the testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses were strong enough to show that the failure of the polling station chief to comply with the procedure had resulted in an error of law.

He said the testimonies of the election commission officers on the way they had conducted the process of counting the votes in the Bukit Payong state poll were ridden with unnatural possibilities.

The judge said that failure to observe the law by polling station chiefs was

a serious matter that could affect the election process. The aim of the law was to ensure a clean process of election and the court would not compromise on the matter. (Source:Bukit Payong election ruled null and void ,2 March 1992,Straits Times)

Wee Choo Keong

DAP Member of Parliament Wee Choo Keong lost his Bukit Bintang parliamentary seat yesterday when the High Court declared that he was not eligible to contest in the last general election because he had committed a criminal offence in committing contempt of court.

Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Halim, however, held that as the election in that constituency was properly conducted, there was no reason for the court to nullify it and order a by-election, Bernama reports.

With Wee's disqualification, the seat goes to Dr Lee Chong Meng of Barisan Nasional who polled the next highest number of votes in the constituency.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Other AssociatesA) Derek Chin, Berjaya Group/CorporationMuch has been said about VK Lingam and Vincent Tan of the Berjaya Group/Corporation and their dealings with the judiciary.An important issue that yet to be addressed is the question of where evidence of their dealings in this regard might be found.The answer may be in the person of Derek Chin Chee Seng, a long-term legal adviser employed by Berjaya Group/Corporation. He has been known to have extensive communications with VK Lingam personally.

Other Matters, Other Judges

A) Siti Mariam OthmanThe Federal Court today maintained the costs of RM600,000 which it had ordered the Bar Council to pay lawyer Datuk V. Kanagalingam over a failed disciplinary complaint.

The sum of RM600,000 as a "getting up fee" was maintained by Federal Court deputy registrar Siti Mariam Othman, who heard the review in chambers today. (Getting up means research and preparation for the trial.)

The council had applied for the review after Siti Mariam awarded the costs to Kanagalingam, better known as V.K. Lingam, on May 7. (Source:National Court maintains costs of RM600,000 to lawyer 17 July 1999,The New Straits Times)

b) Azmel Ma'amor (previously mentioned),Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Zainun AliThe High Court today allowed with costs an appeal by lawyer Datuk V. Kanagalingam against the Advocates and Solicitors' Disciplinary Board decision that there was merit in two complaints of alleged misconduct lodged against him by the Malaysian Bar.

Judge Datuk Azmel Ma'amor, who sat with Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Datuk Zainun Ali, set aside the board's decision, which had also recommended an investigation into the complaints.

Kanagalingam was represented by V. Sithambaram and Wong Kee Tem and the Malaysian Bar by Datuk Bastian Vendargon.

He had also applied for a stay to stop the Malaysian Bar's tribunal from inquiring into the complaints.

The matter before the Appellate and Special Powers Division of the High Court was scheduled for hearing last Monday.

However, Judicial Commissioner Wan Afrah Wan Ibrahim postponed it to Thursday pending this appeal. On June 18, Kanagalingam obtained from the High Court (Appellate and Special Powers Division) an interim stay for the tribunal to conduct the investigation. The Malaysian Bar on Aug 6 last year lodged two complaints of misconduct.

The first was that he did not reply to four letters - dated Aug 27, 1998, Sept 29, 1998, Oct 7, 1998 and Nov 16, 1998 - sent by the Bar to him and therefore had committed a breach of Ruling 10(b) Part H of the Ruling of the Bar Council 1997.

The second complaint was in relation to an allegation in The Star dated Aug 31, 1999, pertaining to a pending civil suit.

(Source:18 November 2003,New Straits Times)

c)Pajan Singh Gill,Rahmah Hussain and Hashim Yusoff

The Malaysian Bar today failed in its bid to set aside a High Court verdict allowing lawyer V. Kanagalingam's appeal against a decision by the Advocates and Solicitors' Disciplinary Board pertaining to complaints of his alleged misconduct.

Federal Court judges Datuk Pajan Singh Gill and Datin Paduka Rahmah Hussain and Court of Appeal judge Datuk Hashim Yusoff, in unanimously dismissing the Malaysian Bar's appeal with costs, agreed with the submissions of Kanagalingam's counsel that the disciplinary board's decision was appealable to the High Court under Section 103E of the Legal Profession Act.

Justice Hashim, who read out the nine-page judgment, said the court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the court below.

The Malaysian Bar had appealed against the High Court's verdict delivered on Nov 17, last year, to allow Kanagalingam's appeal against the Disciplinary Board's decision that there was merit in two complaints of alleged misconduct lodged against Kanagalingam by the Bar.

The High Court had also set aside the board's recommendation that a tribunal be set up to investigate the complaints.

The Malaysian Bar on Aug 6, 2002, lodged two complaints of alleged misconduct against Kanagalingam.

The first was that he did not reply to four letters sent by the Bar to him and therefore had committed a breach of Ruling 10 (b) Part H of the Ruling of the Bar Council 1997 and the second complaint was in relation to an allegation in the Star dated Aug 31, 1999, pertaining to a pending civil suit.

There was once a corporate knight named Eric Chia,who is supposed to have said , "when I look for a lawyer I look for a pariah dog that can bite, not some pedigree dog that can only look and sound good."

This writer would like to first acknowledge the work of other bloggers, particularly Jeff Ooi of Screenshots(www.jefooi.com) and Dr Anwar Ibrahim of www.anwaribrahimblog.com.

I should like now to add the following.

An investigation into VK Lingam and others named in the video clips would require an investigation into all matters involving Lingam.These would include matters which have involved the VK Lingam satellite firms ie firms that act under his direction and which receive and act on briefs that VK Lingam considers too small or inconvenient to deal with.These include:a) V.Sitahmabaram & KT Wong of V.Siva& Partners; represented VK Lingam in VK Lingam v. The Bar Council

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Railway engineering specialist Emrail Sdn Bhd aims to get a piece of the pie in the northern and southern double-tracking railway projects that have been revived by the government.Its chairman is Tan Sri Zaki Azmi.

Formerly known as TIME Salam Engineering, Emrail had refocused its core business from a diversified portfolio to become a specialised railway engineering company in which Zaki has a 58 percent stake. The other substantial shareholder of the company is engineer and entrepreneur Tan Sri Hari Naryanan.

Zaki said revenue last year was not so good "as we hardly made any money out of the Rawang-Ipoh project because of the initial delays in the project.

"My employer is only the government as nobody else builds rails."

Clinching the contracts is essential for Emrail as track construction is the company's bread and butter activity, he explained. (Source:EMRAIL AIMS FOR NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN DOUBLE-TRACKING PROJECTS 21 April 2007,Bernama Daily Malaysian News)

And now, that affair of the heart,otherwise known as the invalid marriage in a textile shop:

New Straits Times , 9 August 2005:

Tan Sri Zaki Azmi has resigned as deputy chairman of the 19-member Umno disciplinary board...Zaki, who was appointed to the post on Feb 7, quit following reports of his controversial divorce from his second wife, Nor Hayati Yahaya, 32.

"Considering that members of the disciplinary board are of the highest integrity, I have made this decision following reports in the media.....(Source:New Straits Times, 9 August 2005, By Zubaidah Abu Bakar, (English)

From the New Straits Times, 24 September 2005:

Prominent lawyer Tan Sri Zaki Azmi sent his second wife some 100 SMS messages a day during their courtship and allegedly promised he would stand by her always.

Nor Hayati Yahaya, 32, raised these points to challenge an application by Zaki to the Syariah court to declare their marriage invalid.

Nor Hayati challenged these points in her affidavit. She said there was a discussion between them where she had allegedly asked: "Is it true Aki (Zaki) will let me go if something goes wrong?" Zaki allegedly replied : "Of course not. After all the difficulties of getting married with baby (Nor Hayati), Aki will not leave baby like that." In her sworn statement, Nor Hayati said it was not true that she badgered Zaki with text messages, saying that it was the lawyer who inundated her with between 30 and 100 SMS messages a day. She also attempted to paint the picture that it was Zaki who did much of the wooing during their courtship.

She also charged that Zaki's action in burning their marriage certificate was mala fide (in bad faith), and applied to the court for a copy of the certificate to ascertain if it had been issued in Malaysia or Thailand.(Source:100 SMSes a day and vow to stand by her ,By A. Hafiz Yatim 24 September 2005,New Straits Times)

Judge Mohd Zaim Mat Yudim said the court could not recognise the marriage, which had been performed by a Thai kadi at a textile shop in Perlis last May. In a judgment delivered in chambers, Zaim said the court had verified that the marriage was not legal and therefore it could not be registered by the religious authorities here.(Source: Lawyer's marriage annulled,18 March 2006New Straits Times)

Records on file with Hong Kong's registrar of companies show that on Feb. 3, 1997, Zaki Azmi, a senior partner in Malaysian law firm Rashid & Lee, became a director of Hottick. He was joined on the Hottick board by another Rashid & Lee senior partner, Abdul Rashid Manaff, Salehuddin, Virata and Abdul Hamid Abdul Manaff, Rashid's brother. Rashid & Lee is Renong's longtime legal adviser and principal solicitor. The firm's Abdul Rashid has, for years, served as a personal legal adviser for Halim.Halim's legal associates had ready access to Malaysian bank credits to make the NSC purchase. Hottick immediately borrowed US$800 million from Malaysia's four biggest banks through their offshore subsidiaries on the Malaysian island of Labuan. One of the four was Bank of Commerce (Labuan) Ltd., which is controlled by 18%-Renong owned Commerce Assets Holdings Bhd. As security for the loan, Hottick pledged its 1.55 billion just-purchased NSC shares to the Malaysian banks.

According to an announcement, Azman replaces Tan Sri Zaki Azmi, 56, who has resigned with immediate effect. At the same time, two company directors - Md Anwar Hj. Mamood, 49, and Dr Teoh Kim Loon, 47 - have also resigned from their posts.

KUALA LUMPUR, Fri. - Three months ago, prominent lawyer Tan Sri Zaki Azmi took a second wife quietly in a ceremony in a textile shop in Perlis. Both he and Nor Hayati Yahaya, 32, agreed to burn the original marriage certificate to hide the marriage from his first wife.

In his statement of claim filed on July 26, Zaki said that Nor Hayati and he were married in May this year in a ceremony presided by a kadi from Thailand.

After the ceremony, both the newly-weds signed a form, which was written in Jawi and Thai. He sought legal advice after the divorce and was told that his marriage may not have been legal under the local Syarak and Syariah law.

The 59th Federal Territory Consultative meeting states that a marriage performed by a Thai kadi outside his jurisdiction in Thailand is considered void.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

First, some background on the history of gaming companies in Malaysia,using Berjaya Sports Toto as an example:Sports Toto Malaysia Sdn Bhd was incorporated in 1969 by the Government of Malaysia. The eighties witnessed the making of a significant milestone in Sports Toto’s corporate history. The Company was privatised on 1st August 1985, relinquishing henceforth, status quo as a state-owned gaming enterprise. Sports Toto is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berjaya Sports Toto Berhad which is listed on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange.(http://sportstoto.com.my/m_info/profile.htm)

Another more complete version of Sports Toto's history was provided by the Business Times,27 May 1987.

Sports Toto, which will become the second gambling enterprise in Malaysia to be listed (after Magnum Corp), was privatised in 1985, with the government retaining a 30% stake. Presently, bumiputra-owned B and B Sdn Bhd owns 60% and the Melewar group 10% of the company's M$1m capital, which is to be expanded to M$30m before the public offer. This is likely to consist of 5.25m shares of M$1 each, or 17.5% of its enlarged capital, priced at M$2 a share, with B and B offering 4.5m shares, reducing its stake to 45% and Melewar 0.5m shares, diluting its stake to 7.5%.

Then later, in 1988,according to the Financial Times UK, on 12 May 1988:

B and B, owned by Mr Vincent Tan and Malay businessmen believed to be nominees of prominent politicians, will buy 20.1 per cent of the Raleigh group for 38.8m ringgit (US$15m). Raleigh itself has announced two acquisitions: a 32.8 per cent stake in Sports Toto, a fast-growing lottery organisation, and a 55.3 per cent stake in the diversified Berjaya Corporation. Raleigh is paying nearly 90m ringgit for its Sports Toto stake, acquired mainly from the Ministry of Finance, and some 190m ringgit for the holding in Berjaya which is controlled by B and B. Berjaya holds 52 per cent of Sports Toto, 48 per cent of Regnis Malaysia (distributor of Singer products), 28 per cent in South Pacific Textiles, and 19 per cent in United Prime Insurance.

Readers ought to note that as at March 22 2006, B and B was registered only as a business name, not as a company.

And now to the judgement where it was held that gaming licenses cannot be transferred or assigned.

DATUK YAP PAK LEONG V SABABUMI (SANDAKAN) SDN BHD[1997] 1 MLJ 587

GOPAL SRI RAM, ABDUL MALEK AHMAD AND MOKHTAR SIDIN JJCAJudgement written by very learned Sri Ram:In regards to Sections 5 and 21 of the Pool Betting Act 1967,and providing their reasons why licenses issued pursuant to the Act cannot be assigned or trnsferred:

In our judgment, these two sections -- ss 5 and 21 -- should be read in thisway. The Minister is empowered to issue a licence to any person to carry outthe activities to which the Act applies. He may impose conditions in thelicence. A person to whom such a licence has been issued may carry on thoseactivities; whether by himself or by his duly authorized employees oragents. It is in the public interest that such agents are not undesirablepersons; for example, persons with criminal records. That is why theMinister in the present case imposed a condition in the new licencerequiring the club to submit for the Minister's approval the list of agentswhom the club wanted to engage.

If any person engages in those activities specified in s 21(1) without alicence, he commits an offence. If a licensee conducts those activities inbreach of the conditions appearing in the licence, he too commits anoffence. The object is to ensure that only a limited class -- the licenseeand his employees and agents -- conducts gaming business.

When viewed in this way, it becomes clear that Parliament intended notmerely to prescribe a penalty but to prohibit the performance of thoseactivities set out in paras (a)-(c) of s 21(1). The prohibition is notexpress. But it is plain enough for us to discern by necessary implication.If we read s 21(1) in any other way, we will negate its true effect andfrustrate Parliament's true intention.In interpreting s 21 in the way which we have done, we have had regard tothe whole Act, including its object and purpose. It is plain from a readingof the Act as a whole that Parliament's intention in passing it was toregulate and control gaming activity throughout the country. Courts are theobedient of the will of Parliament as expressed in the words of the writtenlaw enacted by the latter. They must therefore render an interpretation ofthe provisions of a statute as best advances the intention of Parliament. Bythat we do not, of course, mean that we should re-write a statute. We haveno authority to do so. We must pay heed to the language of the Act and giveit the meaning that advances legislative purpose. And this is what we havedone.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

In refusing to register the UK judgement The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd had obtained against Dato Seri Osu Sukam, a Sabah politician, Ian Chin, of the HC Sabah and Sarawak said:

"Malaysians are a God-fearing people, at least that is what the Rukunegara wants us to be, and to allow a foreign judgment which had enticed a person to gamble on credit and to gamble away the welfare of the family, and leaving the state to pick up the pieces and thus lead one away from the path God has shown us, would surely be against the principle of Belief in God, and believing in God means eschewing gambling since it is a form of covetousness, that is to desire to be rich quickly without working. "In other words, it is against the Rukunegara. Anything that seeks to go against the Rukunegara must surely be regarded as against public policy."

Nice sentiments-unfortunately seems to have ignored Government sanctioned gaming in Sabah, Sarawak, Peninsular Malaysia, the Genting Casino..........See also comments on this judgement at http://www.raslanloong.com/serlah/SERLAH-12-2005.pdf

Monday, August 27, 2007

In June 1997 James Foong, then of the High Court, ruled in favour of three residents affected by the Bakun dam, ordered the project developer Ekran Bhd to suspend work on the dam in Sarawak state until it complied with Malaysia's Environmental Quality Act 1974. He ruled as invalid an order by Malaysia's Minister for Science, Technology and Environment Law Hieng Ding that delegated powers to Sarawak state authorities to approve the project's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The order had deprived the residents of their right to give their views before the EIA was approved, he said.

"This court shall not stand idly by to witness such injustice especially when the plaintiffs have turned to this institution to seek redress," Judge Foong said in a 44-page judgement. The suit was brought by Tahu Lujah, 70, Saran Emu, 48, and Kajing Tubek, 39, who had wanted EIA reports to be made available to them for their views. (Source:Malaysia's High Court issues ruling against Bakun dam ,AFP,19 June 1996 )

The principal defendants in the matter were the Governments of the Federation of Malaysia and the State of Sarawak.They took the matter on appeal to the Court of Appeal.On February 17 1997 the Court of Appeal comprising Gopal Sri Ram the then Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Datuk Mokhtar Sidin, ruled to allow their appeal.

Their reasons included: "In particular he (James Foong) did not have sufficient regard for public interest. Additionally he did not consider the interests of justice from the point of view of both the appellants and respondents." (Source:Grounds for allowing appeal in Bakun case ,K. Kabilan , 30 April 1997 ,The New Straits Times)

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Despite the findings of the Court of Appeal in the Ayer Molek matter,and despite the obvious bias, on 29 February 2004, Azmel Maamor then still of the High Court , sitting with ZULKEFLI AHMAD MAKINUDDIN and ZAINUN ALI heard the case of VK Lingam - vs - The Bar Council , which concerned disciplinary action the Bar Council sought to take against VK Lingam in regards to the inappropriate holiday with then Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin, apparently evidenced by photographs of the two men and their families on holiday in New Zealand.

It was Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin who had chastised the Court of Appeal for its finding against Lingam and Azmel Maamor for their conduct in the Ayer Molek matter.

Azmel Maamor's judgement in VK Lingam - vs - The Bar Council,where he found in favour of Lingam, ends with the words:" second respondent .....failed to observe the basic rules of natural justice when it deliberated on the complaint of the first respondent against the appellant"!http://ipsofactoj.com/highcourt/2004/Part2/hct2004(2)-004.htm

April 18, 1995: Ayer Molek files an appeal against the High Court's order

July 26, 1995: Ayer Molek appealed at the Court of Appeal. The appellate court said "it was using its inherent power to stop further injustices from being perpetrated".

In a stinging judgment delivered on July 31(1995), Justice Datuk N.H. Chan, sitting with Justice Datuk Siti Norma Yaakob and Justice Datuk K.C. Vohrah, began: "This is a case about an injustice that's been perpetrated by a court of law and . . . a case about abuse of the process by the High Court.... Here the plaintiffs through their legal advisers have abused the process of the High Court by instigating the injustice through misuse of the court's procedure by manipulating it in such a way that it becomes manifestly unfair to the defendants. By doing what they did, these unethical lawyers have brought the administration of justice into disrepute."

Said Chan: "While . . . it does not render the proceedings to be in any way invalid, it may . . . give the impression to right thinking people that litigants can choose the judge before whom they wish to appear."In conclusion, Chan quoted from Shakespeare's Hamlet. "These observations are made so that people will not say: 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.'"

Aug 12, 1995: Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal's judgment and censured the lower court for its comments.

(Sources http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/4239/2/ and S. Jayasankaran ;Courting Concerns: Recent cases raise questions about legal system ; Far Eastern Economic Review,7 September 1995)1 SEPTEMBER 2006:Dato' Mohd Hishamudin Bin Yunus J, handing down judgment in DATO' V. KANAGALINGAM v. DAVID SAMUELS, JOFF WILD, ROBERT MENZIES WALKER & EUROMONEY PUBLICATIONS PLC:I have dismissed the plaintiff’s claim....My grounds are as follows...there is a common law principle established as early as 1775 that a person cannot bring an action based on his own wrong (ex turpi causa non oritur action)......That the plaintiff is guilty of wrongdoings, namely, abusing and manipulating the process of court so as to cause injustice to the defendants before the High Court in the Ayer Molek case is clear from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case, which is the main subject of the article, as reported in Ayer Molek Rubber Co Bhd & Ors v Insas Bhd & Anor [1995] 2 MLJ 734. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is referred to by the plaintiff in his evidence. It is the plaintiff’s own wrongful conduct in the Ayer Molek’s case that led to the publication of the article.(http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/4301/27/)

The court dismissed with costs three appeals pertaining to the application by MBf Capital Berhad and MBf Northen Securities Sdn Bhd to furnish RM1.22 million as security for costs.It ruled that it was not necessary for a company to be in possession of cash in order to satisfy the court that it was in a position to pay the costs of an action brought by it in the event that it failed in its suit.

MBf Securities' dealing licence had been suspended by the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange since May 9 1998. The Securities Commission (SC) had given given MBf Securities until July 11 1997 to submit a restructuring plan to regularise its financial position. It had not been able to do so.(Source:OSK to buy 70 pct of MBf Securities. 8 July 1998,23:51Reuters News)

Bank Negara took-over MBf Capital's main subsidiary in January 1999.The firm no longer exists,and has been taken-over by AMMB Holdings Bhd.

Chief Justice of Malaysia Tun Ahmad Fairuz has time and time again called for "proof" that judges have been involved in any form of inappropriate conduct. This blog is devoted to providing the CJ with the evidence.Commentators are asked to limit their posts to documents already in the public domain.To start the ball rolling, I , Ganesh Sahathevan (see, not hiding) will begin today collating on this blog matters where inappropriate conduct seems bloody obvious-unless one chooses not to look.

3. Pursuant to the said judgment dated 25.10.2002, the Plaintiffs issued a Writ of Seizure and Sale vide Writ of Execution No. AE-37-59-2002 dated 13.11.2002 against the properties of the said Public Bank Berhad.

4. The said Defendant, Public Bank Berhad thereupon issued their own Bankers Cheque No. 147363 dated 15.11.2002 for RM14,362,312.00 in favour of Penolong Kanan Pendaftar, Mahkamah Tinggi, Kuala Lumpur in purported accord and settlement and satisfaction of the said Writ of Execution.

5. The Plaintiffs requested and required the said Public Bank Berhad to pay the cheque directly to the Plaintiffs but the said Public Bank Berhad refused to do so and directly contacted the 1st Defendant (Mr Justice James Foong) who directed the Senior Assistant Registrar to allow and accept payment by the Public Bank Berhad instead into Court.

7. At the said material time there was no stay of execution.

8. Thereafter the said Public Bank Berhad stopped payment and the said Bankers Cheque drawn on themselves was returned by the Accountant General as "tidak laku".

11 (a) The 1st Defendant who is attached to the Civil Division (but the Plaintiffs' said case was in the Commercial Division) thereupon as agent, employee and/or at the request of the officers, solicitors or employees of Public Bank Berhad telephoned the Penolong Kanan Pendaftar, High Court, Kuala Lumpur, namely, Encik Mohammad Nordin bin Abd Rauf, in charge of the matter to accept the said bankers cheque as payment into court.

In deciding against the Plaintiffs , Mr Justice Vincent Ng said:

Yet nevertheless, in this outrageous case, I am driven to say that this action arising out of an entirely faultless act of the judge in carrying out the duties assigned to him as head of the Civil Division of the Kuala Lumpur High Court, is marked by serious errors, both in its inception and execution,and inspired by false perception of the health of the judiciary.